Frazier v. Commonwealth, 406 S.W.3d 448

Deputies stopped Thomas Frazier for a turn-signal violation after observing a passenger toss trash from a vehicle; Frazier appeared nervous and initially evasive.
Deputies asked Frazier to exit the car; Deputy Boggs performed an over‑the‑clothes pat‑down despite Frazier’s objection.
During the frisk, Boggs felt a “long, coarse, hard” object in Frazier’s front pocket, asked what it was three times, and then opened the pocket to reveal a plastic bag of marijuana; Frazier was arrested.
Officers then searched Frazier’s vehicle and found a “tire thumper” under the driver’s seat; additional paraphernalia was later found during booking.
Frazier was convicted of multiple offenses; the Court of Appeals affirmed except for littering. The Kentucky Supreme Court granted review to decide the validity of the pat‑down, the pocket intrusion, and the subsequent vehicle search.

Issue	Frazier's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
1) Was the Terry frisk justified?	Nervousness and brief evasiveness did not give reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was armed.	Nervousness, evasive answers, lack of eye contact, and belligerence justified a protective frisk.	No — officers lacked specific, articulable facts to reasonably suspect Frazier was armed; frisk unconstitutional.
2) Did opening the pant pocket exceed Terry/plain‑feel?	Officer could not immediately identify the object by touch; reaching into the pocket was manipulation beyond Terry.	The officer felt a suspicious, coarse, hard object and Frazier’s denials supported further inquiry.	Yes — the object’s nature was not immediately apparent; opening the pocket exceeded Terry; seizure suppressed.
3) Was the vehicle search incident to arrest lawful under Gant?	Vehicle search flowed from an unlawful pat‑down and arrest, so it was invalid.	Drugs found on person after arrest can justify a vehicle search under Gant.	No — because the arrest and person search were unlawful, the vehicle search incident to that arrest was also unconstitutional.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (establishes stop‑and‑frisk standard: pat‑down allowed when officer reasonably suspects person is armed and dangerous)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1993) (plain‑feel doctrine; officer may seize contraband only if its incriminating character is immediately apparent without manipulation)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to situations where arrestee is within reaching distance or vehicle likely contains evidence of the offense)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (scope of search incident to lawful arrest: arrestee and areas within immediate control)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable absent established exceptions)
Adkins v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 779 (Ky. 2003) (nervousness alone insufficient for reasonable suspicion, but relevant as part of totality)
Commonwealth v. Crowder, 884 S.W.2d 649 (Ky. 1994) (applying Dickerson to suppress evidence where officer manipulated pocket to discover contraband)
McCloud v. Commonwealth, 286 S.W.3d 780 (Ky. 2009) (vehicle search incident to arrest upheld where officer reasonably believed vehicle contained evidence after finding drugs on person)